Masses Today

6.30: Seamus Breathnach (Anniv)
11.00 Mgt. & Michael Walsh (& Dolores Jenkins), (Anniv)
6.30 Tom Murphy, (Anniv)



Events This Week






AS I WAS SAYING...

Not just the world but Europe too is sharply divided. Saddam Hussein is a political thug with blood on his hands. His track record is atrocious. On coming to power in 1979, he laid down a marker by putting to death dozens of his rivals. In 1980 he led (or, more accurately drove) his people into a disastrous invasion of Iran. In the eight year conflict, hundreds of thousands of young men died. And here is where the mud enters the waters! On the doubtful principle that "my enemies' enemy is my friend," America befriended Saddam and provided him with some artillery at least. Then in August 1990, Saddam brought the temple tumbling down upon his own head (or at least his people's heads) when he invaded Kuwait, precipitating the disastrous Gulf War.

His terror is not reserved for 'foreign enemies' alone. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, he has systematically used chemical weapons, exterminating thousands, including women and children. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshlands that were vital to the livelihood of that ethnic group.

There is no doubt but that Saddam is a very nasty piece of work. It is entirely understandable that many good people are now instinctively rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of this bully being brought to book. But instinct is an unreliable guide to moral choice. Reason must be accorded the dominant role in this process. The question we must ask is the following: Can this war be justified on rational grounds? Religious leaders throughout the world have arrived at an uncharacteristic consensus. This war cannot be justified. Pope John Paul has been the most outspoken of all in his opposition to the war: "Whoever decides that all peaceful means available under international law are exhausted assumes a grave responsibility before God, his own conscience and history," read the statement issued by the Vatican in the wake of the attack on Baghdad.

The (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church enunciates the traditional elements in what is called 'the just war doctrine:'

  1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain.
  2. All other mean of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
  3. There must be serious prospects of success.
  4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The Catechism goes on to add a 'rider' which is extremely important in the present context: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good."

The United Nations Security Council is the obvious one with whom this decision should rest. America however, holds the UN in contempt: 'a committee of cynical, resentful ex-imperial powers such as France and Russia serving their own national interest' said one Pentagon spokesman. American doesn't trust the UN Security Council, this 'chatterbox on the Hudson'.

But apart altogether from this consideration, it would seem to me that the present war on Iraq fails to meet three of the conditions for a 'Just War' doctrine outlined above. I will take the three 'troublesome' conditions in their proper sequence:

  1. "The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain." It really is difficult to see Iraq as the aggressor in this instance. It is really difficult to understand how Iraq is a threat to the United States. The American case for war is based on the tragic events of September 11. But they have failed conspicuously to connect Saddam with that atrocity.
  2. "All other mean of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective." Obviously, many countries believed that the 'weapon inspections' was both practical and effective. In addition, the Americans did nothing for their case when they changed the goal posts from 'a search for weapons of mass destruction' to one of 'regime change'.
  3. This condition depends on what is defined as 'success'. However, this condition is probably fulfilled.
  4. "The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." There is a very real danger that the whole region will be further destabilised by this war. 'The last state of that man will be worse than the first!'

The American 'case' falls well short of the traditional conditions demanded to justify war. Furthermore, they have set a rather dangerous precedent in contemptuously kicking sand in the eyes of the United Nations. Some criticism of that body may be valid, but will this 'coalition of the willing' be accepted as a credible alternative to the UN? The Americans are dabbling in dangerous fantasy here. But it must also be conceded that the world will be a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. So the end justifies the means after all?

-Dick Lyng.




VOTING WITH OUR FEET?

The Easter Triduum begins with the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday. On that night we commemorate the institution of the Eucharist: "Do this in memory of me." However, pride of place is given that night to the 'Washing of the Feet.' The Ritual stipulates that twelve adults from the congregation should present themselves for the washing. For some inexplicable reason, it has become virtually impossible to get people to volunteer for this exercise. I was making the point to a group during the week that if we miss the point of the Washing of the Feet, we miss the central point of Easter. Perhaps if we appreciated the full meaning of the ritual, we might be more willing to participate.

In our own time we are reluctant to acknowledge dependence. We want to be independent, to be self-sufficient, to be self-centred. In John's gospel the account of Jesus' washing the disciples' feet appears where we would expect to find the text describing the institution of the Eucharist. This is John's way of saying: 'washing the feet of the neighbour is true Eucharist, true service.'

The tools which Jesus left his disciples to carry out their mission of service were a towel and basin. Tools determine and define one's trade. If we disciples of Jesus are left the tools of a servant, we can only do the work of a servant. Certainly a towel and basin are used to carry out the work no master would do. They are used to make contact with the soiled dimensions of humanity that call for personal attention. The towel and the basin place heavy demands on us. We are commissioned to make contact with the soiled, sometimes unattractive dimensions of humanity and to carry out our service with loving attention. Such a mission can be fulfilled only by people who are not self-absorbed, who can take their minds off themselves so as to focus on their ministry to the poor and the needy of the world in all their suffering and anguish.

Most of us would prefer to forget about this sordid side of humanity. Perhaps this explains the unavailability of feet on Holy Saturday evening? Have we actually voted with our feet already?





THESE POEMS

You who in evenings by the fire
May read these words of mine,
How let you see the desert bare
In the print-smooth line?

Listen! These poems were not made in rooms,
But out in the empty sand,
Where only the homeless Arab roams
In a sterile land;

They were not at tables written
With placid curtains drawn,
But by candlelight begotten
Of the dusk and dawn.

They had no peace at their creation,
No twilight hush of wings;
Only the tremble of bombs, the guns' commotion,
And destructive things.


-John Jarmain.





Home